College and Research Libraries A Model for Reviewing Academic Branch Libraries Based on ACRL Guidelines and Standards Olivia M. A. Madison, Sally A. Fry, and David Gregory There is a long history of debate and controversy surrounding the existence of academic branch libraries. Although the reasons for reviewing branch libraries are numerous and varied, there is a need for consistency in the review process. Using recent ACRL guidelines and standards as a foundation, the authors propose a model methodology for reviewing academic branch libraries which may be utilized by any institution undertaking such a process . • hile library literature is re- plete with articles examining the relative merits of central- ized and decentralized aca- demic library systems, the academic branch library continues to be an impor- tant organizational tool to provide li- brary services. In fact, far from dwindling in numbers, academic branch libraries continue to be maintained and established, particularly in institutions where new dollars have been infused to support specific programs. The 1983 ARL SPEC Kit 99, "Branch Libraries in ARL Institutions," reported that more libraries established branch facilities than closed them during the preceding five years." 1 However, college and uni- versity library systems with branch fa- cilities are under increasing pressure, both external and self-imposed, to re- view them, usually with the goal of re- ducing costs. The outcome of such reviews may have major impact on loca- tions and types of collections, reference and document delivery services, staff morale, and library relations with the affected academic departments. Because of the potentially serious ramifications of such reviews, the authors believe that the methods employed are pivotal to the quality, acceptance, and consequences of the resulting decisions. In light of the continuing trend to re- view academic branch libraries, the authors suggest that a standardized model would be useful to administra- tors making decisions regarding the con- tinued maintenance, possible closing, or reshaping of branch services and collec- tions. This article offers a model that any academic library might use when faced with the need to review one or more of its branches. While the reasons for initi- ating a review may vary, much of the review methodology should remain constant and should be based on nation- ally recognized standards. This article begins by describing the circumstances that prompt libraries · to review their branch facilities. Relevant ACRL guidelines and standards are then Olivia M.A. Madison is Assistant Director for Public Services, Sally A. Fry is Head of the Branch Facilities De~X~rtment, and David Gregory is Head of the Access Services Department at Iowa State University Library, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa 50011-2140. 342 Model for Reviewing Academic Branch Libraries 343 discussed, along with the current litera- ture regarding academic branch facili- ties. The authors then propose a model methodology to be used in the formal review of branch libraries. The article concludes with two appendixes: an out- line of the review process, and a sample outline of the written report in which this process culminates. CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING REVIEW OF BRANCH LIBRARIES The impetus for conducting a review of academic branch libraries may arise from institutional or departmental an- nual reviews, accreditation processes, or changes in academic programs and cur- ricula. More often than not, however, serious reviews are undertaken for fi- nancial reasons, with an eye toward cost savings. Branch facilities are often seen by administrators as duplicative, both in terms of collections and staffing. Cam- pus politics can also precipitate a review of branch facilities. A single faculty member's annoyance at having to trudge across campus to obtain research materials can become the catalyst for a lengthy and complicated review proc- ess. As academic programs become more interdisciplinary in nature and ac- quisitions budgets shrink, the competi- tion for materials-especially journal subscriptions-has become keener. This factor is most pronounced in scientific and technical disciplines, where sub- scriptions to many serials are so costly that duplication is fiscally impossible. A single faculty member's annoyance at having to trudge across campus to obtain research materials can become the catalyst for a lengthy and complicated review process. Advances in library automation, elec- tronic services, and new technologies will continue to influence the need for branch library review. Integrated online catalog systems, including circulation, acquisitions, and serial check-in mod- ules, not only provide easy access to the holdings of branch collections but also eliminate the need for remote locations to keep separate records for their mate- rials. Document-delivery technologies, such as fax and text digitizing, provide better physical access to materials in off- site locations. It is unlikely, however, that these technological advances will soon end the debate over the existence of aca- demic branch libraries. The cost of these electronic services remains relatively high, in both dollars and staff time. And, as scholars will testify, there is no substitute for perusing library stacks in person. Therefore, while helping to ease the day- to-day inconveniences caused by branch facilities for some library users, technol- ogy does not eliminate the need to re- view branch libraries. ACRLGUIDELINES AND STANDARDS AND THEIR APPLICABILITY Fortunately for administrators in- volved in branch library review, the two most relevant sets of ACRL guidelines and standards have both been recently revised. The Standards for University Li- b,raries: Evaluation of Performance (hereaf- ter Standards), first adopted by ACRL in 1979, was revised and reissued in 1989.2 The Standards has little to say about the physical organization of libraries, but provide valuable insights into the gen- eral processes of institutional review. The more directly relevant Guidelines for Branch Libraries in Colleges and Universi- ties (hereafter Guidelines), first issued in 1975, was revised extensively in 1990.3 Not surprisingly, the 1990 Guidelines- which emphasizes the importance of a unified (if not physically centralized) li- brary system-makes numerous explicit references to the broader 1989 Standards. Neither provides a detailed formula for branch library review; in fact, both the Standards and the Guidelines are inten- tionally nonprescriptive, with frequent references to the "individual nature" of libraries and library systems. Neverthe- less, taken as starting points, the two documents provide both philosophical underpinning and practical advice for the administrator planning a review of branch facilities. 344 College & Research Libraries The 1989 Standards for University Li- braries is no mere checklist of measurable expectations or strict normative figures. Instead, the Standards "set[s] forth the process by which expectations may be established, and enumerate[s] the topics that should be addressed in the evaluation of university library performance."4 This important distinction makes the docu- ment a useful foundation for any process of academic library review. The Standards begins with a statement of underlying assumptions regarding the role of the university library in sup- porting the teaching, research, and pub- lic service missions of the university. Four of these assumptions have some bearing on the physical organization and delivery of library services, and merit closer examination. The first of these is the centrality of the library to the university mission. Ac- cording to the Standards, the library should be perceived as a center of the academy-physically, intellectually, and technologically speaking. Physically, the library is typically close to the center of campus activity. Intellectually, it is the repository of recorded knowledge and a perceived hub of information services. Technologically, it is a primary node on a worldwide network of computing and telecommunications. This concept of li- brary as center does not, of course, mandate physical or geographic centralization; the Standards, in fact, refers to the library as "an organic combination of people, col- lections, and buildings .... "5 The assump- tion does, however, cast an interesting light on the question of centralization, prompt- ing one to question, in the case of a local review: Does the presence of branch facili- ties on this campus diminish or enhance the perceived centrality of the library to the campus and the university's mission? The second underlying assumption, with obvious relevance to branch library review, is the significance of the institu- tional investment in the library. Accord- ing to the Standards, the library represents one of the largest cumulative capital in- vestments on any campus. In the context of branch library review, this assump- tion raises the inevitable question of fis- July 1994 cal responsibility: Do branch facilities rep- resent a reasonable, cost-effective use of the university's limited financial re- sources? The third assumption, with obvious ramifications in the review of academic branches, pertains to the individual na- ture of each library and its parent insti- tution. According to the Standards, each library or library system has a distiric- tive mix of goals, programs, and expec- tations, influenced as much by campus geography and history as by academic mission. Thus, the former may play as important a role as the latter in resolVing questions of physical centralization of library collections and services. Indeed, as the focus in academic libraries shifts from ownership to access, new technologies will undoubtedly play a pivotal role in determining the optimal physical org~ization of future library systems. The fourth and final assumption set forth by the 1989 Standards pertains to the pace of technological change, which "has rendered outmoded any concept of isolation and self-sufficiency [on the part of university libraries]."6 Thus, al- though the library is traditionally per- ceived as the center or nucleus of the university-a fact which in the past has . strengthened the case for physically cen- tralized services-the library now also exists "within a complex information world, most of whose participants are not on campus."7 The latter statement calls into question traditional assump- tions regarding the physical organiza- tion of libraries and campus geography in general. Indeed, as the focus in aca- demic libraries shifts from ownership to access, new technologies will undoubt- edly play a pivotal role in determining the optimal physical organization of fu- ture library systems. Generally speaking, the assumptions that underpin the 1989 Standards contain both concepts and language that are use- ful when formulating criteria for open- Model for Reviewing Academic Branch Libraries 345 ing or maintaining a branch facility- criteria that in tum give direction and focus to the actual process of branch li- brary review. Beyond this, the document provides a useful summary of the vari- ous components of institutional per- formance evaluation. These include (1) the establishment of appropriate goals and objectives, (2) an inventory of the resources needed to meet these estab- lished goals, (3) an overview of the for- mal review process itself, in terms of participants, mechanisms, and prod- ucts, and (4) a list of specific evaluative criteria, related to areas of planning, budget, human resources, collections, preservation, buildings and equipment, ·and services. The 1990 Guidelines for Branch Libraries in Colleges and Universities both comple- ments and supplements the 1989 Stand- ards document. The Guidelines, more narrowly focused, includes a recom- mended review process for branch facili- ties, with four broad components. The first is a description and analysis of a branch library's programs, which must meet the information needs of its pri- mary users as well as the cross-discipli- nary needs of the total academic community. The second is a review of those resources--personnel, facilities, and collections-required by branches to effectively perform their mission. Third is the review of communication channels that link the branch facility to its primary clientele, to the central li- brary and other branches, and to any appropriate professional organizations. The fourth and final component is the formal assessment of specific achieve- ment measures. Here, especially, the Guidelines provides helpful advice in the form of specific criteria to use in evalu- ating branch facilities. The criteria, for- mulated as questions, are arranged in categories such as "adequacy of the budget" (Does the branch librarian have adequate influence in the process of budgetary development?), "size of the collections" (Does the collection profile match the academic programs as de- scribed in the collection policy?), "access and availability" (Can the branch library provide convenient access to materials not owned by the overall library sys- tem?), "preservation and conservation" (Does the branch have adequate safe- guards against loss, mutilation, and theft?), and "adequacy of services'' (What is the ratio of public services staff to the number of primary constituents?).8 · THE LITERATURE OF ACADEMIC BRANCH LIBRARIES While ACRL guidelines and standards provide valuable assistance in develop- ing a review process for branch facilities, administrators may also wish to consult the wealth of related literature in this area. The definitive review article by Robert A. Seal summarizes and organ- izes the literature from the tum of the century through the mid-1980s.9 The predominant theme throughout this pe- riod has been the centralization/ decen- tralization debate, a topic that has received full symposium treatment at least twice- first by College & Research Libraries (1961) and more recently by the Journal of Aca- demic Librarianship (1983).10 Most authors have favored centralization, citing a common inventory of arguments: the in- creasingly interdisciplinary nature of collections; economies of time and ef- fort; consistency, quality, and equity of services to the academic community. If anything, the literature of polemic and debate appears to have subsided in the eight years since Seal's article was published. Leon Shkolnik recently has attempted to place both sides of the cen- tralization controversy in historical per- spective, and discusses the prospects for future physical organization of libraries based on current trends and-more im- portantly-emerging technologies.11 While Shkolnik recognizes the tendency toward greater centralization in academic librar- ies, he is optimistic that technology will permit more creative compromises be- tween totally centralized and decentral- ized models of organization . . More recently, in an article entitled "The Or- ganizational Misfits," Patricia A. Suozzi and Sandra S. Kerbel have suggested that academic branches are not misfits at all, but rather models for the library of the 346 College & Research Libraries future-entrepreneurial, flexible, and client-centered, functioning not as iso- lated units but as interconnected nodes in a sophisticated information net- work.12 In light of the new mandate for libraries to serve as client-driven infor- mation providers, the authors caution that "the regular call for elimination of departmental libraries may not only be myopic but also illogical and ultimately self-destructive."13 If fewer contemporary writers are ex- pounding on the branch library "prob- lem," significantly more have begun to publish studies-both descriptive and analytical-on the effective manage- ment and administration of branch fa- cilities. Writing in 1986, Seal decried the lack of "extensive and intensive research relating branch library organization to performance," and called for more sys- tematic and scientific studies of branch library operation.14 Since then, a number of studies have shed greater light on various aspects of branch library plan- ning, administration, and operation. In 1986, William E. McGrath applied cluster analysis techniques to circulation data in thirty-seven disciplines, in an effort to study empirically such issues as the interdependence of knowledge and the centralization/ decentralization of li- brary collections.15 Neal K. Kaske pub- lished the results of a comparative study of subject searching in an OPAC among branches of a university library system.16 Lisa Aren Strubbe studied charac- teristics of serials duplication among twenty branch and divisional libraries at the University of Michigan, demonstrat- ing that decentralization is not the only source of collection overlap.17 F. W. Lan- caster and others studied the relation- ship between literature scatter-i.e., the predictable distribution of relevant jour- nal articles over journal titles-and the accessibility of these titles in an aca- demic branch library.18 David Ensign considered the legal implications of us- ing telefacsimile to support sharing of periodical subscriptions among branch facilities of a single academic library. 19 The literature of the past few years has also produced some interesting case July 1994 studies involving the opening, closing, or consolidation of academic branches. Katherine E. Clark and William R. Kinyon describe an innovative study at Texas A&M, in which online searching of peri- odical databases was used to demonstrate the interdisciplinary nature of thirty-six physics journals.~ The A&M study, which confirmed that the journals in question were critically important to engineers, chemists, and other researchers, influ- enced the library's decision to not create a separate physics branch library. In related articles, Anita L. Battiste and Alice L. Pri- mae~ provide an interesting case study of the consolidation of four branch facilities into a central science library at the Uni- versity of Florida.21 Similarly, Marianna S. Wells and Richard A. Spohn docu- mented the planning, implementation, and benefits of merging the Geology and Physics Libraries at the University of Cincinnati into a combined facility. 22 Finally, Helen Gater describes the un- usual situation at Arizona State Univer- sity, where the establishment of an ASU . West campus in 1984 included the crea- tion of a state-of-the-art electronic li- brary. 23 Perceived as a branch of the main campus libraries some thirty miles away, it de-emphasizes local collections and seeks rather to excel in access services. Ann Okerson suggests that the ASU West Campus Library and other self- proclaimed "Information Access Cen- ters" resemble special libraries more so than traditional university libraries be- cause of their heavy reliance on elec- tronic information, and rapid delivery of items not housed in the local collec- tions.24 Similarly, Robert L. Burr and Charlene S. Hurt offer insights into such concepts as the "electronic branch li- brary" and the "distributed electronic library" system.25 An underlying theme in the work of all these authors, but stated most succinctly by Okerson, is that technology "makes a different sort of library thinkable and do-able." 26 MODEL METHODOLOGY The proposed methodology for review- ing academic branch facilities includes four major parts: scope and purpose of Model for Reviewing Academic Branch Libraries 347 review, decision-making authority and responsibilities, criteria for opening or maintaining branch libraries, and final report and recommendations. Appendix A provides a sample outline for the entire review process. Appendix B provides a sample report outline, based on the crite- ria for maintaining or opening branch libraries. Scope and Purpose of Review Before embarking on a review of one or more academic branch libraries, it is essential to determine specifically the purpose and scope of the review. For example, the review may have been in- itiated to determine the economic viabil- ity of branch collections and services. In this particular type of review, issues involving duplication-of collections, services, and staffing-are frequently paramount. Questions of fairness may also be raised, particularly by faculty and students who tend to use the central li- brary, and may regard the branch facility as a specialized service for a small, privi- leged clientele. A review may also be initi- ated as part of an individual academic department/ college strategic planning process, and focus on whether or not the branch library's collections and services adequately support the future directions of the department or college. The impe- tus for the review will in turn influence its scope, which should be clearly estab- lished at the outset. In defining the scope, one must determine not only which facilities are being studied, but also the specific areas (e.g., collections, budgets, space, staffing) to be examined. Dedsion-Making Authority and Responsibilities Having established the purpose and scope of the review, the next step is to identify the individual who has final de- cision-making authority regarding the creation, maintenance, or closing of branch library facilities. In some set- tings, this will be the provost or vice president for academic affairs; in others, the institutional president. It is impera- tive to involve this individual in plan- ning the review process, and not merely in its final resolution. Thus, at various stages, he or she should give final approval to the scope of the review, the designated report writer and other review partici- pants, and the review criteria. It is also important to identify the in- dividual officially responsible for submit- ting the final report. This is frequently the library director, sometimes working in conjunction with a college dean. The central criterion to consider, in identify- ing this individual, is the administrative unit having primary or total budgetary responsibility for the facility under re- view. Questions of fairness may also be raised, particularly by faculty and students who tend to use the central library, and may regard the branch facility as a specialized service for a small, privileged clientele. The identity of other review partici- pants is likewise of critical importance. Normally, the report produced by such a review will include official recommen- dations. However, there should also be avenues for dissenting opinions. This, in turn, raises questions regarding the or- ganization of the report. Will a single report be issued, perhaps with majority and minority recommendations, or will different constituencies prepare separate reports? The former approach minimizes duplication; the latter may more accu- rately convey the conflicting concerns of participants. Regardless of the approach taken, the individual in charge of prepar- ing the final report must ensure that all administrative units or individuals with vested interests in the facility have some role in drafting and reviewing appropri- ate sections of the report. Typically, this will include library and non-library staff and administrators at departmental, col- lege, and university levels. Criteria to Maintain for Open Branch Libraries Perhaps the most important part of the entire review process is the creation, 348 College & Research Libraries revision or reaffirmation of criteria for maintaining or opening a branch library. It is crucial that these criteria be ap- proved at the outset by the apministra- tor with whom final decision-making authority rests. Basing the review proc- ess on predetermined criteria sends a clear message to the academic commu- nity at large that the review will be as objective and nonpartisan as possible. In fact, unless such criteria have been pre- established and confirmed by a high- ranking official, the mere mention of a branch library review will bring faculty members out in full force-some to "de- fend" their branch facilities, others in an obvious posture of "attack." Once these criteria have been agreed upon, an out- line of the review's content should be determined, along with a proposed time line for completion. When establishing criteria for main- taining or opening an academic branch library, it is helpful to draw on the work of objective, external authorities. librar- ies will benefit by consulting and adapt- ing portions of the aforementioned ACRL guidelines and standards, aug- menting them as needed with material from local mission statements and stra- tegic plans. The following are sample criteria that might be used: 1. Academic mission and strategic plans. The academic programs that the branch facility supports are im- portant to the parent institution, as evidenced by its mission state- ments and/ or strategic plans. 2. Geographic location. Either the branch facility and its primary us- ers are physically remote from the central library, or there exist special curriculum, research, and/ or ac- creditation requirements for locat- ing a branch facility in close prox- imity to the central library. 3. Budget. The administrative unit re- sponsible for the branch library has an adequate budget and a stable source of income to support the col- lections, services, equipment, staff- ing and physical facilities. 4. Focus, accessibility and utiliza- tion of collections and services. July 1994 • The branch library's collections and services are heavily used by primary users, and of limited in- terest to other university pop- ulations. (This distinction is in- creasingly difficult to maintain as academic programs become more interdisciplinary in nature. For some branch libraries, there will be a heightened demand for shared access to items in the total library collection-both elec- tronically and through improved document-delivery services.) • The branch library's collections support current and future needs of primary users. The level of du- plication is acceptable and in bal- ance with the budgetary oon- straints of the total library system. • Bibliographic and holdings ac- cess to the collections of the total library system is available at the branch library. Conversely, bibli- ographic and holdings access to the collections of the branch li- brary is available throughout the library system. • Physical access to the branch fa- cility's collections and services is adequate in comparison to the central library. • Branch library's services and equipment support current and future needs of primary users and staff. Either the branch li- brary provides levels of service comparable to those of the cen- tral library, or adequate referral and delivery systems are in place. The level of duplication between branch and central li- brary services is acceptable and in balance with the budgetary constraints of the total library system. 5. Physical environment. In general, the branch facility's physical envi- ronment is adequate in comparison to that of the central library. Spe- cific issues to examine are: • Public seating and shelving space • Preservation/ conservation of ma- terials Model for Reviewing Academic Branch Libraries 349 • Lighting, heating, ventilation, and cooling systems • Staff/public safety mechanisms and evacuation procedures • Security of the facility and collec- tions • Access to electrical, telephone and telecommunication services. 6. Impact on other library facilities. If a branch facility is closed or opened, the central library system can support this action in terms of collections, services, staffing levels, and/ or physical space. Report and Final Recommendations The concluding step in this model is the preparation of the report, with its final recommendations. In both content and organization, the report should be based closely on the predetermined re- view criteria. Likewise, the concluding recommendations must follow logically from these criteria, if they are to appear credible and nonpartisan. The sample report outline in Appen- dix B assumes a thorough review encom- passing background and historical information; budgetary support; aca- demic program accreditation issues; all library services (e.g., reference, reserve, interlibrary loan, photocopying, proc- essing, etc.), statistical overviews of the collection; analyses of the user popula- tion; library hours; on-site usage of the integrated OPAC; stacks and study space; environmental conditions; safety and security systems; usage of the facil- ity and its collection by primary and nonprimary user populations; impact on the rest of the library system and the academic units if the branch facility were to be closed; and final recommen- dations regarding the review. Depend- ing on the scope and criteria of any given review, the outline should be modified accordingly. The individual responsible for sub- mitting the final report should also be responsible for establishing the report's outline, and for delegating the tasks of writing and editing specific sections to appropriate individuals or administra- tive units. Before the actual writing be- gins, it is advisable that the report's pri- mary author meet with the designated contributors to discuss the purpose and scope of the review, examine the pro- posed report outline, and answer any preliminary questions. It is also recom- mended that standardized forms be used to gather data and solicit input. This not only facilitates the compilation and comparison of data but also ensures consistency and equity in the case of a multifacility review. Only by soliciting input from all relevant parties can one accurately portray the complicated reality of funding for some branch facilities. In soliciting input for the report, it is crucial to be as inclusive as possible. For example, both the library and an aca- demic department may contribute fi- nancially to the support of a given branch facility, and the funding "mix" may be subtle and complex. Moreover, some financial support is ongoing (sala- ries or serial subscriptions, for example), while other is one-time (such as the pur- chase of equipment, or a serial backfile). Only by soliciting input from all relevant parties can one accurately portray the complicated reality of funding for some branch facilities. It is also important to provide historical perspectives regard- ing any given branch, which will con- tribute to the thoroughness of the report. This can be accomplished by having staff from the branch facility itself, the central library, and the appropriate aca- demic departments all participate in drafting the sections on user popula- tions and historical background. If the review results in a single report, it is recommended that one person be responsible for compiling and editing the individually written sections. The compiler should strive to represent the multiplicity of perspectives, but at the same time minimize needless duplication. If more than one branch library is being reviewed, it may be desirable to produce a separate report 350 College & Research Libraries for each facility, along with a summary report of the entire review process. The latter would include comparison tables. Included within the report, or issued as a companion document, should be the final recommendations and conclusions of the individual(s) officially responsible for the review process. It may be useful to separate the library recommendations from those of the academic unit(s) in- volved. The final report with its recommenda- tions should then be ready for submission to the administrator with decision-making authority. All major participants should receive copies of the complete final re- port or, in the case of a multifacility re- view, copies of the relevant individual reports along with the final summary. Distribution of the report may occur concurrently with or immediately fol- lowing the submission of the report to the administrator, or following any final decision-making process that is required by the review. CONCLUDING REMARKS The evolving national discussion on academic branch libraries is now firmly centered on how well they meet the needs of a primary clientele, how thor- oughly they are integrated into the larger library system, and how capably they are managed. Not surprisingly, there is a growing interest among large, central libraries to replicate some of the specialized, subject-based services tra- ditionally provided by branch librari- ans. Regardless of their academic interest, philosophical debates regard- ing the merits of centralized or decen- tralized library services are increasingly overshadowed by empirical studies and July 1994 utilitarian discussions of branch library management. For many academic librar- ies, branch facilities will remain an inte- gral part of their total library service; it is essential for administrators in these settings to understand how to best util- ize decentralized resources, staffing and facilities. Obviously, the best time to conduct a thorough review of branch libraries is not at the request of an outside agency, but as part of a systematic review of the unified library system. The review model proposed by the authors reflects the current, pragmatic approach to decentralized library sys- tems. Reviews of branch facilities are not usually undertaken voluntarily; nor do library administrators typically have time to develop review methodologies from a blank slate. This model is there- fore offered as a springboard, to be used in both designing and implementing a local review process. Obviously, the best time to conduct a thorough review of branch libraries is not at the request of an outside agency, but as part of a sys- tematic review of the unified library sys- tem. If, over time, the same model is used for successive reviews, the first re- view can serve to establish benchmarks against which later data can be com- pared. Finally, the descriptive and statis- tical information obtained from such reviews can provide much-needed man- agement data by which services, budg- ets, and staffing may be objectively compared, and unbiased management decisions made. Model for Reviewing Academic Branch Libraries 351 REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Association of Research Libraries, Branch Libraries in ARL Institutions, ARL SPEC Kit 99 (Washington, D.C.: Office of Management Services, Association of Research Libraries, 1983), introductory page. 2. Association of College and Research Libraries, University Library Standards Review Com- mittee, "Standards for University Libraries: Evaluation of Performance," College & Research Libraries News 50 (Sept. 1989): 679-91. 3. Association of College and Research Libraries, "ACRL Guidelines for Branch Libraries in Colleges and Universities," College & Research Libraries News 52 (Mar. 1991): 171-74. 4. Association of College and Research Libraries, "Standards for University Libraries," 680. 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid., 681. 7. Ibid. 8. Association of College and Research Libraries, "ACRL Guidelines for Branch Libraries," 173-74. 9. Robert A. Seal, "Academic Branch Libraries," Advances in Librarianship 14 (1986): 175-209. 10. "Centralization and Decentralization in Academic Libraries: A Symposium," College & Research Libraries 22 (Sept. 1961 ): 327-40+/and "Centralization or Decentralization of Library Collections: A Symposium," Journal of Academic Librarianship 9 (Sept. 1983): 196-202. 11. Leon Shkolnik, "The Continuing Debate over Academic Branch Libraries in Colleges and Universities," College & Research Libraries 52 (July 1991): 343-51. 12. Patricia A. Suozzi and Sandra S. Kerbel, "The Organizational Misfits," College & Research Libraries 53 (Nov. 1992): 513-22. 13. Ibid., 520. 14. Seal, "Academic Branch Libraries," 204. 15. William E. McGrath, "Circulation Clusters-An Empirical Approach to Decentralization of Academic Libraries," Journal of Academic Librarianship 12 (Sept. 1986): 221-26. 16. Neal K Kaske, "A Comparative Study of Subject Searching in an OPAC among Branch Libraries of a University Library System," Infonnation Technology and Libraries 7 (Dec. 1988): 359-72. 17. Lisa Aren Strubbe, "Characteristics of Serials Duplication within an Academic Research Library," Library and Information Science Research 11 (Apr./June 1989): 91-108. 18. F. W. Lancaster et al., "The Relationship between Literature Scatter and Journal Accessibility in an Academic Special Library," Collection Building 11 (1991): 19-22. 19. David Ensign, "Copyright and the Use of Telefacsimile among Branch Library Facilities," Law Library Journal83 (Summer 1991): 451-61. 20. Katharine E. Clark and William R Kinyon, "The Interdisciplinary Use of Physics Journals," College & Research Libraries News 50 (Feb. 1989): 145-50. 21. Anita L. Battiste et al., "The University ?f Florida's Moving Experience," College & Research Libraries News 50 (June 1989): 467-71;;and Alice L. Primack and Anita L. Battiste, "Training Reference Staff Prior to Consolidating Science Collections," College & Research Libraries News 50 (June 1989): 473-74. 22. Marianna S. Wells and· Richard A. Spohn, "Planning, Implementation, and Benefits of Merging the Geology and Physics Libraries into a Combined Renovated Facility at the University of Cincinnati," in Geological Societies and Information Transfer in the Electronic Age (Alexandria, Va.: Geoscience Information Society, 1991), 173-83. 23. Helen Gater, "Creation of an Academic Library: Lessons from an Empty Slate," Journal of Library Administration 10, no.2/3 (1989): 39-48. 24. Ann Okerson, "Married to the Library," Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 13 (1989): 155-60. 25. Robert L Burr, "The Electronic Branch Library: Using CD-ROM Technology and Online Services to Support Off-campus Instructional Programs," in Proceedings of the National Online Meeting, New York, May 10-12,1988 (Medford, N.J.: Learned Information, 1988), 37-42; and Charlene S. Hurt, "A Vision of the Library of the 21st Century," Journal of Library Administration 15, nos.3/4 (1992): 7-19. 26. Okerson, "Married to the Library," 158. 352 College &: Research Libraries APPENDIX A OUTLINE OF REVIEW PROCESS I. DETERMINE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF REVIEW July 1994 A. Include only those branch libraries currently administered by central library system? B. Include branch libraries administered by other academic departments/ colleges? 11. DETERMINE PAKfiCIPANTS IN REVIEW PROCFSS A. Who will draft the basic "Criteria for Maintaining or Opening a Branch Library"? B. Who will compile/draft/edit the Final Report? C. Who will review the Criteria and Final Report (draft and final versions), and make recommendations to the administrative official responsible for decision making? Among the reviewers, is there adequate representation of: 1. university-level administration? 2. university faculty? 3. college administration? 4. departments/colleges directly affected by review? D. What administrative official will make final decisj on to maintain or open a branch library? III. DRAFf, DISSEMINATE, AND APPROVE "CRITERIA FOR MAINTAINING OR OPENING A BRANCH LIBRARY" IV. BASED ON PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF REVIEW, AND "CRITERIA FOR MAINTAINING OR OPENING A BRANCH LIBRARY," DETERMINE Ol.ITUNE FOR FINAL REPORT AND TIMEUNE FOR FORMAL REVIEW PROCFSS V. GATHER DATA AND PREPARE FINAL REPORT VI. SUBMIT FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DECISION-MAKING '·AUTHORITY VII. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL MAKES FINAL DECISION(S) APPENDIXB REPORT OUTLINE I. BACKGROUND OF BRANCH LIBRARY II. DFSCRIPTION OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS SERVED BY THE BRANCH LIBRARY III. RELATIONSHIP OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS TO COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY MISSION STATEMENTS AND STRATEGIC PLANS IV. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION A. Distance from central library facility B. Reasons for current or proposed geographic location C. Accreditation requirements of the academic programs D. Relationship to any master campus facility plan V. BUDGETS A. Collections 1. purpose of budget 2. total allocated budget 3. source and stability of budget 4. duplication of serials 5. binding Model for Reviewing Academic Branch Libraries 353 B. Staffing 1. description 2. total allocated budget 3. source and stability of allocated budget C. Equipment and supplies; telecommunications 1. description 2. total allocated budget 3. source and stability of allocated budget D. One-time purchases (last five years and state source) E. Nonadministrative budgetary sources F. Potential new sources of budget support VI. FOCUS, ACCESSIBILITY AND UTILIZATION OF COLLECTIONS AND SERVICES A. Collections and processing 1. serials a. total serial titles b. total serial subscriptions c. total bound serials 2. monographs a. total monograph titles b. total monograph volumes 3. nonbook formats 4. nonlibrary owned materials 5. duplication of collection to central and branch library facilities a. duplication of current serial titles (1) number (2) cost b. duplication of ceased serial titles c. duplication of monograph titles 6. processing a. cataloging/indexing b. serials control c. materials processing d. other 7. physical access to collection B. Local online systems (include central library system, local library or campus area networks, accessibility to external library systems, Internet, etc.) 1. descriptions 2. usage C. User population 1. primary 2. other university users 3. nonuniversity users D. Hours of access E. Use of facility and collections 1. entrance/exit counts 2. circulation a. general b. reserve c. in-house use 354 College & Research Libraries July 1994 F. Services 1. · reference a. description (include database searching and instructional activities) b. annual transactions 2. reserve a. annual reserve circulation b. annual number of reserve titles 3. photocopying a. annual number of pages photocopied b. annual number of pages photocopied for reserve 4. interlibrary loan/ document delivery 5. referral services 6. other G. Relationship of collections and services to curriculum, research and outreach activities H. Equipment (staff and public) 1. description 2. evaluation of current state and future needs I. Future impact of new technologies J. Interaction with nonlibrary units (on- and off-campus) VII. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT A. Amount and use of space B. Square footage C. Usage of space/ growth potential 1. public seating (current and capacity) 2. shelving (current and capacity) D. Environmental control E. Quality of physical environment, relative to central library F. Safety and security issues VIII. IMPACT ON CENTRAL FACILITY IF CLOSED/OPENED A. Anticipated transfer and shifting of materials to central facility 1. description 2. labor and transportation costs B. Transfer I reassignment of branch facility seating C. Seating and study space (individual and group); office spaces for researchers D. Reserve services E. Current periodical services F. Reference services G. Photocopying services H. Automation I. Processing 1. cataloging/indexing 2. serials control 3. materials processing 4. other IX. IMPACT ON ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT(S)/COLLEGE IF CLOSED/OPENED X. RECOMMENDATIONS A. library B. academic department(s)/college